JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 31.12.2012, made in C2/32597/2012, quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Kamalakannan, son of Munusamy Gounder, aged 58 years, confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court, and to set him at liberty. 2. The detenu, namely, Kamalakannan, son of Munusamy Gounder, has been detained, under Section 3[1] r/w. Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd respondent, in his proceedings, No.C2/32597/2012, dated 31.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 31.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Cuddalore. 3. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the order of detention, passed by the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent, on 31.12.2012, is liable to be set aside, on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order of detention, dated 31.12.2012, had not applied his mind properly. In order to substantiate the said claim, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had referred to the averments made in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows:- "5. I am aware that Thiru. Kamalakannan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Villupuram, in Civil Supplies CID, Cuddalore Unit Crime No.315/2012 under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955 and 294[b], 353 and 307 IPC on 23.11.2012 at 18.00 hours and remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Central Prison, Cuddalore, till 07.12.2012 as remand prisoner. Lastly his remand was extended till 04.1.2013 on 21.12.2012. He had filed a bail application for Civil Supplies, CID, Cuddalore Unit Crime No.315/2012 under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955 and 294[b], 353 and 307 IPC before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in Crl.M.P.No.11465/2012 and the same is pending. Lastly his remand was extended till 04.1.2013 on 21.12.2012. He had filed a bail application for Civil Supplies, CID, Cuddalore Unit Crime No.315/2012 under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955 and 294[b], 353 and 307 IPC before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in Crl.M.P.No.11465/2012 and the same is pending. In a similar case registered at CS CID, Cuddalore Unit Cr.No.732/2011, under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955 and 294[b], 353 and 307 IPC, Thiru.Nazeer @ Nazeer Rahman, male, aged 38, S/o.Ahmed, Mangai Illam, Lakshmi Nagar, Viluppuram, Viluppuram District was released on bail by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Viluppuram, in Crl.M.P.No.10391/2011 dt:21.10.2011. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his [Thiru. Kamalakannan] coming out on bail in the above Crime No.315 of 2012 since bails are granted by the courts in such cases. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities in future as well, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru. Kamalakannan is a Black Marketeer and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Commodities essential to the community under the provisions of 3[1] of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [Act 7 of 1980]." 5. Even though the detaining authority had stated, in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, that in a similar case registered at CS CID, Cuddalore Unit Crime.No.732/2011, under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act, 1955 and 294[b], 353 and 307 IPC, one Nazeer @ Nazeer Rahman, had been released on bail, by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Viluppuram, in Crl.M.P.No.10391 of 2011, by an order, dated 21.10.2011, the detaining authority had failed to furnish a copy of the bail application to the detenu. Thus, the non-supply of the relevant document would vitiate the order of detention, dated 31.12.2012. Further, it is clear that the detenu did not have sufficient opportunity to make an effective representation, against the impugned order of detention, as he had not been furnished with the relevant document. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate for the detaining authority to state that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, in the ground case, since bails are granted, by the courts, in such cases. Hence, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority had passed the impugned order of detention, dated 31.12.2012, without proper application of mind. 6. In such circumstances, the impugned detention order, passed by the second respondent, dated 31.12.2012, is set aside and this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.